james jwm-art net a écrit : > On 15/8/2007, "ARN" wrote: > >>> I think I preferred the images to be honest. This I can't quite tell >>> what it is meant to do. I can't help thinking it does not what it's >>> meant to. >> why always looking for a meaning ? i'm not sure something should always >> mean something (else than what it is, in reality). in fact, to be honest >> too, i believe in the contrary: a piece of art should not have a >> determined meaning, so it remain open to high potential of >> interpretations (for those looking for meaning). >> art is not communication, despite the big current confusion. > > this is a fair point, but i've been more trying to understand what is > happening rather than 'what it means' - though that could be > considered meaning. i program now and again. i naturally expect things > to be clear and this is not clear: what is happening when i do this or > that with it? > > :)
a software is always a black box for the user. what happens is in the dark layers of codes, protocols, hardwares and networks. the program layer i did with PHP/XHTML is also full of black boxes to me, for example i really don't know what happen at the C level of PHP on the server within an imap PHP function. so things can not be clear at all levels for a given point of view. what can be clarified by you is the relations you make in your mind while experiencing the work. in this way, clarifying = experiencing. >>> Like what was said about the images, can't there be more >>> control over it? Instead of chars to link/click, a string to >>> type/submit. ??? [slightly overwhelmed] ??? >> and.. why are you looking for more control ? > > i don't know. perhaps control was the wrong word. perhaps influence is a > better word. a greater array of influence, or choice in the matter, just > to be able to.... > >> http://www.x257.com/asrf/ seems not to be a tool allowing you to produce >> something you have the feeling to choose, it looks more like a simple >> coded machine in the networked reality we share. > > but a machine, in the traditional sense has a purpose, function, > predicatability. this is purposeless and therefor of no value ( ? ) i don't think there is such a direct link between machine, purpose and value, especially with art practices. think about works by Jean Tinguely for example. >>> it's too spammy. >> may be, that's a matter of style perception concerning machine outputs. >> > > hmmm. does that not count for anything? :) outputs are important, as inputs, and output style is partly defined by input style, but in the case of this work, style is a kind of undefined parameter. about this work, you can also read: http://www.neural.it/nnews/asrfg.htm (this text is also a black box for me ;-) _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
